Hotels in Asia are Far Better Than Those in Europe

I just went to a couple of trips to Indonesia. The hotels like Ritz Carlton, Four Seasons and Shangrila are incredibly grand. For USD150 per night, you get a room that is around 400 – 500 sq ft. The bathroom is around 100 sq ft alone. For the price, I get free Wifi at very high speeds (comparable to Singapore’s). I get to use the executive suite which offers wine, beer, snacks, the TV and sometimes even a snooker table. The breakfast is usually multi-continental, offering Korea, Japanese, Western, Chinese and local breakfast. The service is exceptional.

I went to the Ritz in Paris. It was terrible. The room was no bigger than 200 sq ft. The Wifi was intermittent and slow (note that Internet is slow throughout France!). The bed was not even as big as a Queen size. The cost? USD500 per night!

Hotels around Asia, with the exception of Hong Kong, are generally very large. Even Tokyo and Singapore has larger rooms than in Europe. Talk about not comparing developing vs developed countries.

Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam etc are like the “Geylang” residential properties in Singapore. It is not easy to live in these countries, but the upside is tremendous. When you go out on the streets of South East Asian countries, you see pollution, chaotic traffic, lack of public transport, very bad traffic jams, sometimes lack of hygiene, poor infrastructure. When you walk the streets of Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, London, Barcelona, Rome and Milan, you see very good infrastructure. The subway lines are usually very comprehensive. The streets are clean. The cities are very liveable, although I would not want to live in places where taxes are high.

But in these chaotic cities in South of Asia, I see opportunities. I see upside. Often when things are already very chaotic, the only way is up. Houses are so cheap in cities like Jakarta, or Hanoi, or Johor Bahru that the only way is up. Investing property is like investing in stocks. It is not the absence of bad news that will make stocks or property prices rise. It’s the decrease in bad news. 

Do The Best People Really Become Leaders? Organisational Behavior 101

Major Problems of an Organisation

When you work in a large company, you often find those people who are gregarious, who have strong social skills, rise to the top. But whether they are of average intelligence of not is in doubt. The best politician who rises to the top may not be a good leader. He may be all talk and little knowledge. Europe has been ruined by a succession of leaders who promise voters the moon that the voters could work less, earn more, and have entitlement to everything for free. The politicians are often suave, eloquent, and network very well. But the big question is, should such people be trusted to lead the country? Do they have a strong economic plan?

I trust technocrats more than politicians. They are often academics or are strong in economics or financial matters. However, they may not be good politicians and often fall by the wayside because they cannot garnet support for their ideas. They have a vision that cannot be implemented. It’s such a pity.

Similarly, in an organisation, it is often the glibbest tongued people who rise to the top. Do they deserve to be at the top? Will the organisation benefit? Are these people intelligent enough to have a grand vision and to do the right thing? I am not sure. Sometimes, we are lucky and get a leader who is eloquent and at the same time very intelligent. Often, we just get someone who’s a salesman or saleswoman.

I do not have an answer to these questions. All I can say is these are flaws that are very difficult to correct. Humans are social creatures. They are emotional. They often support people who are likeable, and whom they perceive can benefit them. We have to make the talent selection program as transparent as possible. We cannot leave talent development to chance, or to shallow analysis, or to emotional or selfish choices.